Is Direct X in Windows 2000 really that slow?

[X Cell]

PIII-700 @ ~800
Abit BE6
Ge-Force DDR

By PC dual boots Win98/2000.

Win98 3D Marks 2000 = ~5300
Win2000 3DMarks 2000 = ~3800

Both have the same version driver 5.36 i think


I know that Windows 2000 is not really meant for games but Open GL is ok so why is my Direct 3D so bad?

Is it the same for everyone and if not what could I be doing wrong?

[Thorne]

Its not u its 3d mark 2000,I dont think its fully 2000 compatible,hence the benchmarks arent fully accurate, I get 5300 in 98 and 4800 in 2000, I use Directx 8 mind U. Dont ask me where i got it,ive lost the link.

I have an Athlon 600,256mb & gefore II GTS BTW.


Does it seem bad? nearly everyone on this board puts too much emphasis into 3D mark 2000,if u have no problems with any games why worry about a benchmark?

[WildWayz]

Yeah - 3D Marks 2000 is a little ****e, TBH.

Now, Direct3D in Win2K is poor anyway, so that score is quite good.

On my P3 667, 256mb ram, GeForce II 32mb GTS I get
Win98SE = 5882
Win2K = 3556

--WildWayz

[Calzor Suzay]

Aren't the GeForce cards held back a bit in Win2k at the mo? I remember reading that the Nvidia 6.40 detonator drivers should incorporate proper support fot the agp slot in Win2k.

[WildWayz]

Possibly

DirectX 8 didn't seem to affect the performance at all. Then again, no games utilise it yet.

--WildWayz

[arian]

I think its 3d mark too ive checked all me frame rates and they are within 10 on either OS. So im assuming its 3d mark. Only thing is I love Q3 but its starting to make me feel a bit sick every now and then. No probs on Win98. I cant for the life of me think why this should be. unless of course old age is creeping in, nah.

[X Cell]

Well I borrowed this monitor for about a week once and that made me feel sick after I used it for a while. I was fine when I went back to my old one. Check to see if the refresh is the same in Win2000 as it is in 98.

I dunno could have nothing to do with it.